By Rishi Gupta

Nepal’s Puzzling New Poltical Equation

On October 3, 2017, two major Left
political parties, the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified, Marxist and Leninist
(CPN-UML), and the Nepal Communist Party-Maoist (CPN-M), along with a new fraction
of the Maoists, the Naya Shakti Party, formed an alliance for the upcoming election
for seven provincial legislatures and the federal parliament to be held on
November 26 and December 7. However, the Naya
Shakti party, days after the alliance formation, exited from it as the party was
sidelined in choice-based seat
sharing, and aligned instead with the Nepali Congress party.

At the national level, this announcement surprised
political observers since the Maoists remain in the government in coalition
with the Nepali Congress. This is not the first
time that the Maoists and the UML have come together. Prior to the present Nepali Congress-led government, the UML had formed the
government with the support of the Maoists
under the leadership of KP Oli in 2015. The Maoists had blamed Oli for not
respecting the terms of the power-sharing
agreement and in May 2016, Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda
withdrew support from the coalition and formed the government with the support of the Nepali Congress party. The Maoists also continued their alliance with the
Nepali Congress in the recently-concluded
local body elections where they came in third with the Nepali Congress securing
second place.

Similarly, the news injected a wave of mixed opinions in
the international fora, especially in India
and China. The alliance defied the calculations of the South Block in New Delhi.
New Delhi had lately been lobbying with the top brass of the Nepali Congress in anticipation that the Maoists would
realign with the former for the upcoming elections, assuring a reachable
political space in Nepal, but the long-secret
talks between the UML and Maoists have foiled these hopes. Notably, Nepal’s transition
from a feudal monarchy to constitutional democracy in last decade has tested
India’s Nepal policy, precisely in terms of
approach and functionalities. Critics argue that India’s party-centric approach, rather than maintaining a reliable
and balanced relationship with Nepal, has failed to provide the desired results to India.

On the other hand, China has called this a fruitful
development towards a stable Nepal. For a long time, China has maintained a
policy of not commenting on the internal developments of Nepal on public platforms. However, China remains
one of the influential actors in the Nepalese polity. Professor Dai Yonghong of
the China Center for South Asia Studies at Sichuan University sees the Left Alliance
as a great opportunity for the long-awaited political stability in Nepal. He
also commented that China looks forward to friendly and peaceful cooperation with
Nepal, and that by joining the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in May 2017, the government of Nepal, irrespective of the
leadership, has affirmed its commitment for the sustainable
development of Nepal.

Following the constitutional promulgation on September
20, 2015, an earthquake-stricken Nepal
suffered a four-month-long blockade at a
major trade route at the India-Nepal border, allegedly imposed by India. As a
result, Nepal utilized the opportunity to
reach out to China for the supply of necessary utility items. Also, just two
days before the inaugural BRI Forum in China, Nepal signed to become part of
the ambitious project. It was one of the major
departures of Nepal from its reliance on India towards
balanced cooperation with China. As the BRI took a leap
forward with its clear future course in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s three-and-a-half
hour speech at the nineteenth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in
October 2017, it was apparent from Xi’s speech that the global outreach of China will be conducted under the BRI umbrella, and the record
seven-times mention of the BRI in his speech
makes a strong case in this regard. This
provides reassurance of the commitment of China to Nepal of its continued
cooperation in the several sectors of development.

In contrast, India’s outreach in the region has fallen
prey to a long-standing bilateral issue with
neighbouring countries — India-Pakistan tensions. As a result, platforms
like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) are deficient in acceptable and visionary regional
leadership. The alternative arrangement deployed by India to save the regional bargain runs on a snail shell syndrome.
In this situation, Nepal’s rising trade deficit with India, changing public perceptions
after the blockade, and deadlocks on several development projects to be
developed by India, show the dire need for
confidence-building measures.

The
vague ideological foundations of UML and the Maoists offer the least of socialism, and a future authoritarian
government cannot be overruled.

This will be the third time that Nepalese will participate in parliamentary
elections, the first being in 2008 and the second in 2012. This is timely for Nepal as the new constitution
promulgated in 2015 provides a clear face
for its legislative, executive and judicial branches. This comes following the delay
caused by the political impasse over the
constitutional promulgation, which will become a reality after the elections.

Observers in India see the ongoing developments in
Nepal as a forward-looking solution to
the prolonged political instability in Nepal. The upcoming elections will be held as per the provision in the new
constitution, and this will further
strengthen the constitution. Nonetheless, the constitutional
amendments concerning the rights of the people belonging to Terai (southern
part of Nepal) remain unresolved to date.
It will be interesting to see the crucial role of the two major Terai-based regional parties, the Rashtriya Janata Party-Nepal (RJP-N) and the Sanghiya
Samajbadi Forum-Nepal.

Further, Nepal’s leadership crisis has intensified in the last six years. By resigning
from the post of the Prime Minister nine months after he assumed power in May 2017,
Prachanda paved the way for the present Prime Minister Deuba to lead the
coalition government until the new Parliament becomes functional. Although this
had provided hopes for long-lasting
political stability, the Left Alliance faces tangible
challenges.

First, UML, being the largest party in the alliance,
and its satisfactory performance in the recently-concluded local body elections,
challenges the ideality and existence of the Maoist party even as they align
with them. Second, the impending issues of constitutional amendments, the peace
process, and the slow pace of relief works following the 2015 earthquake, will
create a further political vacuum. Third, an ideological unity and merger of UML
and the Maoists in the post-election phase
seem utopian precisely because of the existing rift within the UML leadership. It was
clearly seen during the seat allotment process
for the upcoming elections and indicates a more uncertain political agenda of
the two parties. Notably, the “Nepali communist movement has witnessed a series of splits and disintegrations since its
inception some 68 years ago.” Even though
by aligning with his staunch longtime critic, KP Oli, Prachanda has secured his
political relevance, the vote share will
still be crucial in deciding the future course of the Left Alliance.

Fourth, on the foreign policy front, the patriotic UML
remains China-friendly whereas the Maoists
will have a puzzling time balancing their equation with India. The recent cancellation
of the Budhi Gandaki project, a 1200-MW hydropower
project that had been awarded to the Chinese firm Gejuwa, on transparency
grounds by the Nepali Congress party-led government, is seen as part of a political vendetta. Oli has left no stone
unturned in raising this issue at several election rallies and his promise to
overturn the government’s decision in case the Left Alliance forms the next government will have serious
implications for Nepal’s relationship with India. A Left Alliance victory in
the forthcoming provincial and federal elections will push India to rethink its policy
grounds to move from the established
structure of a unilateral
party/individual to a more multilateral shareholder based interaction with
Nepal.

To conclude, as UML chairman KP Oli calls for
establishing a communist form of governance after the elections, an intense debate on its nature
has begun to surface. The vague ideological foundations of UML and the Maoists offer
the least of socialism, and a future
authoritarian government cannot be overruled.
Yet, the elections will provide a clear map to a new order of
relationship between the provinces and the federation, helping the country achieve
a new transparency in its development.